On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Or Gerlitz <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Jason Gunthorpe > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 12:47:55AM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote: > >>> The patch is three liner to add the cached attrs -- >>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-rdma&m=142309296813985&w=2 -- if you are OK >>> with that, I will add a 2nd patch that ports all ULPs to use the >>> cached copy instead of their code which does the query. > >>> Actually, why not start with this approach and later decide if we need >>> to go further of this is enough? > >> Or, can we please stop this bikeshedding. Christoph's patch is done, >> well tested and does a lot more clean up that this hacky three liner. > > Christoph patch is here indeed, it does two things > > 1. remove all the ULP device attr alloc, device query, attr free hassle > 2. adds tons of new fields to struct ib_device > > I think it just goes too much and needlessly adds tons of these new > fields directly to struct ib_device where we can have them all well > scoped into ib_device_attr member or pointer from struct ib_device > >> It is a good patch, > > I didn't say it's bad, I said I think we can achieve #1 above with way > less drastic patch, and I'd like to hear the maintainer option, and > have the chance to argu with the maintainer if needed, yours I heard, > you like it, I know.
and I will be OOO for the rest of this week, since this is in the air for ***months***, it would be fair enough to ask the maintainer not to cut it this way or another before next week, Doug, agree? Or. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
